Question for the pro gun ban people.

[doniton2]

I myself am against the gun ban and over the past few weeks have been doing a lot of reading about it. My question to you is where are the stats or evidence that banning any type or all guns will work? All the material I've been able to find shows that crime rates don't change when only one type is banned and it goes up when all guns are banned. I don't want this to be a flaming thread I just want to understand the other side. I do believe we need changes but don't think a knee jerk reaction of registering all or banning any guns is a good idea.

 

[fallenarch]

I cannot support this only because I don't have time to look for the articles i read some time ago. But the FBI says it's pretty definitive that gun bans or no gun bans have little to do with crime or cirime involving guns. Crime is almost totally driven by other factors (economy, education, police force, etc.). Criminals are very crafty and they find targets of little resistance, but if they have to they will go after any prize they want. Gun bans will probably reduce "crimes without rewards", that being the silly mass shootings. But bank robbers will get arms and smuggle them into the country if they need them. On the other hand, a completely dis-armed public is a scary proposition and history has proven repeatedly that this is not a good situation - no matter how unbalanced the power is between the state and the people.

 

[twotonevert]

Guys, understand, its not about safety, its about control.

Sent from my Ford F-150 using Forum Runner

 

[Fastfrog007]

Guys, understand, its not about safety, its about control.

Sent from my Ford F-150 using Forum Runner

Sad but true.

 

[doniton2]

Guys, understand, its not about safety, its about control.

Sent from my Ford F-150 using Forum Runner

I agree completely. I can't seem to find any real numbers or prof that a ban will do anything positive. I think history is a great teacher and as far as I can tell any ban on a single type of weapon has done nothing. Any time there has been a total ban bad thinks have happened.

 

[chrisjp]

i respect anyone's RIGHT to not own weapons. nobody is forcing them to own them or carry them. the CRIMINAL and the GOVERNMENT are forcing them to be HELPLESS VICTIMS. can anyone explain to me the logic of purposely rolling the dice and saying I WILL DIE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S TERMS???

 

[cheferman65]

i respect anyone's RIGHT to not own weapons. nobody is forcing them to own them or carry them. the CRIMINAL and the GOVERNMENT are forcing them to be HELPLESS VICTIMS. can anyone explain to me the logic of purposely rolling the dice and saying I WILL DIE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S TERMS???

You mean like sitting in a movie theater enjoying a date with my wife and someone decides to spray a couple hundred rounds out into the crowd...


I don't see the problem as being a gun control issue, it's a human being issue. I do have issue with the "need" to have military style weapons as personal protection. There has to be control somewhere. If we cannot control who has or how they use, then controlling what's allowed is the easier option.

The ownership of a side arm or rifle is a huge responsibility, most people have issue with navigating daily life, driving properly, parenting, being socially responsible and courteous/civil towards one another.

 

[wv rider]

You mean like sitting in a movie theater enjoying a date with my wife and someone decides to spray a couple hundred rounds out into the crowd...


I don't see the problem as being a gun control issue, it's a human being issue. I do have issue with the [B]"need" to have [/B]military style weapons as personal protection. There has to be control somewhere. If we cannot control who has or how they use, then controlling what's allowed is the easier option.

The ownership of a side arm or rifle is a huge responsibility, most people have issue with navigating daily life, driving properly, parenting, being socially responsible and courteous/civil towards one another.

Right to have.

 

[masterblaster]

The 2 A is there to keep the government in check, and to help the Army/Police protect the country and your community if needed.


I fear my government more than I fear any of my neighbors or the citizenry in general or a military invasion by another country. I think you should be armed as well as your local police, usually a shotgun, pistol, bolt gun, and an AR. This is not military armament, most police forces don't have grenade launchers, full auto weapons MG's etc etc. So yeah keeping a tank or howitzer in the garage is not realistic.

 

[cheferman65]

Right to have.

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

 

[dragonbusa]

Why do i need a rifle with a 30 round mag? because my goverment has a rifle with a 30 round mag! founding fathers made these laws to protect me from my goverment.

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

 

[twotonevert]

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.
Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

Thats cool, what happens when you decide that I no longer need to be able to drink a beer, or have a vehicle with a V8 engine? Think of children! Just because you dont care anything about your rights as a citizen doesnt mean you can trample mine. Show me one case of a legally owned firearm being used by the owner to commit a crime, much less a mass shooting. No matter what anyone thinks, new laws will not stop the evil that exists in this world. I am sick of tired of all the politcal correctness that we as Amercians have been forced to swallow. How many times does the media report on positive gun owners, like stopping would be robbers or potential shootings? Hardley ever because that does not fit the current politcal profile.
Once they get this in place, they will come after other rights. We dont need them anyway right, I mean for heavens sake, those rights are outdated. How dare you believe that you have the right to speak your mind! This is 2013 and we have the best president ever!

 

[StromBusa]

Two kinds of people, people that want to be taken care of, people that want to take care of themselves. The former think it best to declaw the latter cuz they are so scarey. Even though the latter leave them alone for the most part. We found a country with specified individual rights, then public servants start with the "well we'll deceide" who gets them.... We need to focus on collectively straightening out the fundamentals of our society and forget about the endless cries for changing the rules. Our society follows less existing rules each day, and sometimes less is more. We need some few black and white rules that we can enforce, prolly starting with drugs & murder. KISS. We have watered down our deterrents over the years to the point that our corrective action system amounts to "club sped". If we can be led in harmony we will be successful. If we keep our eyes off the prize through the constant infighting, our foundations crumble.

 

[DevilDawg1]

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

Y0u are correct, but no where does it "not say" high capacity semi auto military style.
And because it is my right is the only reason I need. Who has the right to say who is and who is not responsible? Would you allow that to be the Federal Government?

 

[Strife]

Why is it our "right to bear arms"? What was that to protect us against? I feel it's safe to say that everyone(99.9%) of Americans feel the government has made a bad decision in one fashion or another.

 

[wv rider]

It's the right to bear arms...nowhere does it say high capacity semi automatic military style weapons that were purpose designed to kill multiple adversaries quickly. I don't think our forefathers were considering what was going to happen 224 years later.

I completely get the "right" as I own and carry. I have issues with the "need" to have mentality. I think these types of weapons should be categorized like fully automatic weapons and be extremely controlled.

Just because it's within your right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people own due to their "right", this is where I have issue.

You have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you can use foul language in public or use insulting/ demeaning language toward another individual(not that you do personnaly). Just because you have the right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people do due to their "right".

 

[DevilDawg1]

You have the right to free speech. Nowhere does it say you can use foul language in public or use insulting/ demeaning language toward another individual(not that you do personnaly). Just because you have the right doesn't mean you should have. Too many irresponsible people do due to their "right".

Who has the right to say "who is" and "who is not" responsible? Should we leave this decision to the Federal Government? I think not.

 

[skydivr]

"With great power comes great responsibility"

Our Forefathers wrote our Constitution to provide the citizenry that UNIQUE abilty to protect themselves from a tryanical government (they had just fought off one) and recognized that an armed population ensures that no government (foreign or domestic) could cancel out by force all the other rights guaranteed in this new Constitution they created.

Could they imagine our country decaying to the point that irresponsible people outnumbered responsible ones? I doubt it, cause back then the irresponsbile pretty much weeded themselves out soon enough.

As difficult as it may be, it is a burden that we as Americans must accept to keep all our other rights; without the 2nd, the others will eventually fail.

Now man up, put on your big girl panties, and let's be the country our forefathers envisioned for us.

 

[voodoodoo]

More guns more shooting, less guns less shooting.
If you want less people to shoot each other you need to remove the tool, if you want less people to stab each other you need to remove the knives etc.

If you mean that owning semi automatic battle rifles creates a safer society u are either plain stupid or living in a warzone.

But hey, i'm a guy i'd like to shoot things, i have my Browning bar 308 semi auto hunting rifle, a SIG226 pistol, a shotgun, a Sako 300wm for raindeer hunting, and a Sauer 6,5mm for the shooting range.
Would i use any of them to protect myself. No probably not, i'm insured i'd let the criminals take my stuff rather than risking my and the people in my surrounding's life by startong a shootout.

 

[DevilDawg1]

More guns more shooting, less guns less shooting.
If you want less people to shoot each other you need to remove the tool, if you want less people to stab each other you need to remove the knives etc.

If you mean that owning semi automatic battle rifles creates a safer society u are either plain stupid or living in a warzone.

But hey, i'm a guy i'd like to shoot things, i have my Browning bar 308 semi auto hunting rifle, a SIG226 pistol, a shotgun, a Sako 300wm for raindeer hunting, and a Sauer 6,5mm for the shooting range.
Would i use any of them to protect myself. No probably not, i'm insured i'd let the criminals take my stuff rather than risking my and the people in my surrounding's life by startong a shootout.

But would you give your weapons up, if Uncle Sam starts asking for them?

I am insured as well, but what is mine is not for the taking by a criminal. As far as defending, each set of circumstances would dictate what a person would/would not/should/should not do. And as for defending my family, no one could do it as hard as I could (everyone would feel the same, for the most part).

Is a piece of equipment worth dieing for (probably not), But is the principle worth fighting for (most definiteley).

Just because an AR15, FAL .308 looks like a military rifle doesn't make it so. Are they tough, durable, and dependable - yes, but so is my lever action 30-30, and my SAA .45LC.